Search Results for: Gaming Act 1968 34

Click the case name for better results:

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Regina v Burt and Adams Ltd: CACD 22 Nov 1995

A right to exchange gaming token was no offence, and nor was allowing the accumulation of prizes. Citations: Times 22-Nov-1995 Statutes: Gaming Act 1968 34(3) 34(8) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appealed to – Regina v Burt and Adams Ltd HL 2-Apr-1998 Prizes from gaming machines which were limited to prizes of six pounds per … Continue reading Regina v Burt and Adams Ltd: CACD 22 Nov 1995

Regina v Burt and Adams Ltd: HL 2 Apr 1998

Prizes from gaming machines which were limited to prizes of six pounds per game could be lawfully accumulated by gamers under management rules for larger prizes Judges: Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nolan, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead Citations: Gazette 07-May-1998, Times 03-Apr-1998, [1998] UKHL 14, [1999] AC 247, [1998] … Continue reading Regina v Burt and Adams Ltd: HL 2 Apr 1998

Regina v Liverpool Crown Court and Another, Ex Parte Luxury Leisure Ltd: CA 26 Oct 1998

When deciding on the grant of licences for gaming machines with prizes in an amusement centre, the Local Authority had the right to look at the social circumstances in the surrounding area, and take the view that the grant of the licence would be inappropriate. Citations: Times 26-Oct-1998 Statutes: Gaming Act 1968 34, Lotteries and … Continue reading Regina v Liverpool Crown Court and Another, Ex Parte Luxury Leisure Ltd: CA 26 Oct 1998

Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (T/A Crockfords): SC 25 Oct 2017

The claimant gambler sought payment of his winnings. The casino said that he had operated a system called edge-sorting to achieve the winnings, and that this was a form of cheating so as to excuse their payment. The system exploited tiny variances in the appearance of the sides of playing cards, and the manipulation of … Continue reading Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (T/A Crockfords): SC 25 Oct 2017

HMRC v The Rank Group Plc: UTTC 4 Oct 2012

Taxation – whether gaming or betting and the different VAT Treatment of newer gaming machines. Citations: [2012] UKUT 347 (TCC), [2013] STC 420 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: At VDT (1) – The Rank Group Plc v Revenue and Customs VDT 27-May-2008 VDT EXEMPT SUPPLIES – Gaming – Mechanised cash bingo under Gaming … Continue reading HMRC v The Rank Group Plc: UTTC 4 Oct 2012

Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group: ChD 8 Jun 2009

The court was asked whether the VAT treatment of mechanised cash bingo breaches the principle of fiscal neutrality: and the core issue on the appeal is whether the burden lay on Rank to adduce evidence to prove not only that there was a difference in VAT treatment between similar (and apparently competing) products but also … Continue reading Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group: ChD 8 Jun 2009

Aspinall’s Club Ltd v Al-Zayat: ComC 3 Sep 2008

The claimant sought payment on a cheque in respect of gamblig debts incurred by the defendant. Teare J said: ‘The ordinary and natural meaning of credit in the context of section 16 of the Act is ‘time to pay’, in the sense of deferring or postponing the punter’s obligation to pay for the chips he … Continue reading Aspinall’s Club Ltd v Al-Zayat: ComC 3 Sep 2008

Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group Plc: SC 8 Jul 2015

The question raised by this appeal is whether, during the period 1 October 2002 to 5 December 2005, the takings on a particular category of gaming machines operated by the appellants were subject to VAT. The answer depends on whether the takings resulted from the provision of a ‘gaming machine’ as defined in Note (3), … Continue reading Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group Plc: SC 8 Jul 2015